Constitutional amendment may be only way out of campaign finance deregulation: Another view

The Supreme Court arguments over campaign finance last week were positively surreal. It now seems likely that after the debacle of Citizens United — which unleashed hundreds of millions of dollars in anonymous spending into elections — the court will deregulate the system even further.

Our system of campaign finance already amounts to legalized bribery. If the court fails to see reason, a constitutional amendment may be the only way out.

The case argued last week, McCutcheon v. FEC, involves Alabama businessman Shaun McCutcheon, who wants to contribute more to political candidates and parties than the two-year federal limit of $123,200. McCutcheon, joined by the Republican National Committee, argues that the limit impinges on his First Amendment rights to free speech. The case does not address limits on donations to individuals and parties, only the so-called aggregate limit, but can a challenge to those rules be far behind?

The court has ruled that money is the equivalent of speech. But it has also held, for decades, that some limits on campaign donations — such as the aggregate limit — are reasonable because they help limit corruption.

Nonetheless it appears the court will soon strike down the aggregate limit on free speech grounds. One of the reasons cited is downright appalling. Justice Antonin Scalia said, essentially, that because the 2010 Citizens United decision already has sent a flood of money through the system, removing the aggregate caps wouldn’t have much impact.

Removing the cap would allow an individual to give about $3.5 million, if they funded every federal race and donated to the political parties. “When you add all that up,” Scalia said, “I don’t think $3.5 million is a heck of a lot of money.”

The idea that billionaires’ free speech rights are impinged by these limits is absurd. They can still say whatever they want. They can still give millions to outside groups.

The problem with our campaign finance system is not that the wealthy have too little say. It’s that they have too much. If the Supreme Court decides that the Constitution doesn’t protect the rights of ordinary Americans to be represented fairly in Washington, ordinary Americans may need to change the Constitution.